Beretta 3032 Tomcat Failure to Feed.

[Lauf]

Two weeks ago, I purchased a brand new gun, Beretta 3032 Tomcat, and I wanted to share with the members of this forum my experience with one particular flaw of the gun – its failure to feed, and how I went about fixing the problem. But, let me start from the beginning.

BACKGROUND:

Up until about two weeks ago, my go-to carry concealed gun was Walther PPS, equipped with the 7-round magazine. Excellent carry-concealed gun, chambered in 9mm, Made in Germany, and the quality of the gun is second to none. When I bought it brand new, I put roughly 100 rounds thru it to get the feel for how the gun shoots. I used only factory new ammo, half of the rounds were hollow points, the other half were FMJs. Not one failure to feed, eject, or any other issues. After the initial trial, I simply loaded the magazine with 7 rounds, and began carrying it. I did notice, though, that some of my pants vaguely showed an outline of the gun when I had it in my pocket. After some time, this prompted me to consider buying something that would be smaller and wouldn’t give off any hints that it is in my pocket.

This brought me to Beretta’s web site, where I found all the info regarding the Tomcat 3032, chambered in 32 Auto. I did, of course, do the due diligence, and found out about the cracking frames, which I was convinced Beretta solved. I also read about the failure to feed, but none of the articles touching on this subject went deep enough to describe exactly what was happening and how, plus there were indications that this issue is not impacting large percentage of the guns. Thus, when I found out that Beretta offers a $150 mail-in rebate on the Tomcats, I decided to pull the trigger. My nearest Cabella’s had a few of them in stock, so I took a leisurely Sunday drive to the store to check one out, and possibly buy it if I should like what I see. I put on one of those pants that have tighter fit, and which do show an outline of the Walther when I carry it, and I hit the road. You can see the size comparison between the two guns in the first image.

When I arrived at the store, the sales clerk handed me one of the guns, and I was pleasantly surprised how well it fit in my hand, despite its small size. The workmanship looked nice, too, so I slipped it into my pocked to see if it shows up. It didn’t, and that sealed the deal. The store had zero stock of any 32 ACP ammo, which meant I would not be able to test the gun on the same day after arriving home. That happened three days later, when an order of PMC Bronze 60 grain JHPs arrived from AE Ammo. I went to the woods behind the house to do some shooting. Following is a description of what happened next.

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:

I loaded the magazine with 7 rounds of the aforementioned ammo, and loaded one more round into the chamber. To avoid any confusion, I will call the extra round in the chamber round #8, the top round in the magazine round #7, the one below #7 will be #6, etc., etc., until the round that is at the bottom of the magazine, which will be round #1. I pulled the trigger, and the gun fired, as expected. The empty case of #8 was ejected, but the slide failed to chamber round #7. Instead, the slide pushed round #7 only about 3-4 mm forward, and then it stopped. I engaged the safety, opened the barrel, removed the magazine, removed round #7 from the magazine and slipped it into the barrel, closed the barrel, placed another round on top of round #6, placed the magazine in the gun, released the safety, and fired the gun. The gun did exactly the same thing as with the first shot – it fired the round that was in the chamber, but failed again to chamber round #7 from the magazine. Once again, the slide pushed #7 only about 4 mm forward, and then stopped.

I repeated this test a total of 10 times, and every time the gun fired #8, it failed to chamber round #7 from the magazine, moving it forward only a few millimeters. I then tried to fire the gun with only 6 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. The failure to feed now dropped from 100% to about 70%. At this point, I felt like I am beginning to understand what is going on. Next, I tried to load the magazine with only 5 rounds plus one into the chamber. As expected, the failure to feed the top round from the magazine (#5) dropped even further, to about 25%. Then, when I loaded the magazine with 4 rounds or fewer, plus one in the chamber, the slide was able to feed properly the top round from the magazine every time without a glitch. At that point, I concluded this part of my test, and went home. I ordered a few boxes of different type of ammunition, Norma Range & Training 73 grain FMJ from AE Ammo, to see if this type of ammo would fare any better than the hollow points (I had doubts it would, considering how the gun behaved). Three days later, the ammo arrived, and I was able to complete the second half of my test by running exactly the same scenarios as I did with the hollow points, only this time around, I would be using FMJ bullets. It came to me as no surprise that the results were exactly the same for the FMJs as were for the hollow points – 100% failure rate to feed round #7 after firing round #8, with the failure rates decreasing as fewer and fewer rounds were loaded in the magazine.

ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS:

So, what is the root cause of this failure to feed? Clearly, the failure to feed the top rounds from the magazine into the chamber is a function of how many rounds are in the magazine. With the magazine fully loaded, the failure rate is 100%, dropping to 0% with only 4 or fewer rounds loaded. So, what is different between two identical magazines, one fully loaded, and another one holding only 4 rounds? Obviously, it is the force exerted by the magazine spring upon the rounds. The fewer rounds are present in the magazine, the more relaxed the spring is, and the lower the force is that pushes the rounds against the two lips on top of the magazine. Conversely, the more rounds are loaded, the higher the force gets. It is obvious that in this particular gun, the force that pushes the rounds against the two lips on top of the magazine is too large, and the slide return spring is then unable to overcome the friction between the top round and the magazine body. As rounds are being fired, the magazine spring extends, resulting in lower friction between the top round and the magazine, and the failure to feed is less and less likely as more rounds are removed from the magazine. When I fired the gun, I also noticed that the spent cases have fairly deep scratch marks both on the body and the ejection rim at the bottom of the case. Upon closer examination of the magazine, I found sharp burrs on the two lips that hold the top round in place, which certainly further exacerbated the feeding problem.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS:

After analyzing the problem, it became clear that, 1. The force exerted by the magazine spring on the cartridges must be reduced, and, 2. The sharp burrs must be removed from the magazine lips. Reducing the force with which the spring pushes the rounds upwards is easily accomplished by reducing the length of the spring. This was, of course, guesswork, and I used the spring from the Walther PPS magazine to estimate how much to shorten the spring. In the end, I clipped off 3 full turns of the spring, and then I straightened the end of the spring so that the entire last turn of the spring is in one plane. The attached image shows the Walther PPS spring on top, the shortened Beretta spring in the middle, and the section I removed to the right of the modified spring. To remove the burrs from the two lips, I attempted to use a small needle file, but the steel that is used on the magazine body is so hard that the file won’t touch it. So, I had to use a sandpaper to smooth out the edges. When I was done with these two modifications, I washed the body of the magazine to remove any abrasive dust, coated everything with a thin layer of oil, and reassembled the magazine.

TESTING THE MODIFICATIONS:

With these two simple modifications in place, I loaded the magazine with 7 rounds. I then attempted to push the top round out with my thumb. It took some effort, but it went smoothly. Before I implemented the changes, performing this same task was almost impossible. It was now time to do some shooting, and I repeated the tests I ran before – seven rounds in the magazine, one more in the chamber, FMJs went first. Round #8 went off, and much to my delight, the gun successfully chambered round #7 from the magazine. I then engaged the safety, removed the magazine, placed one more round into the magazine, replaced the magazine, released the safety and fired the next round. Again, the gun fired and chambered round #7. I ran this test 10 times in a row with the FMJs and then 10 more times with the hollow points, and I am pleased to report that the gun properly chambered every one of the 20 test rounds. I then proceeded to fire all remaining rounds left in the magazine, once again, with zero failures to feed.

CONCLUSION:

It appears that performing these two simple modifications fixed the issue I was experiencing. I saw articles that suggested replacing the slide return springs as a fix since they may wear out and weaken over time. I didn’t consider that to be a solution to my situation because this is a brand new gun that has never been fired before, and thus, these springs have seen no stress so far. Other articles mentioned misadjusted slide lock lever (whatever that may be), but after firing only a few first shots, when it became clear that this issue depends on the number of rounds in the magazine, I focused my attention in that direction. Granted, to make statistically valid conclusion, I probably should have fired more than just 10 hollow points and 10 FMJs. However, going from 100% failure rate before the fix to 0% afterwards, even if it is only with 20 rounds spent, is such a profound change that I decided not to waste any more ammunition and call it the correct solution to the issue I was experiencing. So, if you are experiencing the same problem as I did, I encourage you to run these two modifications and see if your feeding problems go away. The best part about this fix is that you aren’t messing with the gun itself, only the magazine, the fix only takes a few minutes, and if you mess it up, you can always buy a new magazine from Beretta for about $25.

GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE GUN:

When I brought the gun home, I went thru all the papers that were included in the box with the gun. Much to my surprise, Beretta included a notice to the owners regarding ammunition. Essentially, Beretta warns owners that using ammunition with muzzle energy exceeding 130 ft.lbs will increase wear and tear on the gun. It sounds like a thinly veiled admission that the frame-cracking issue hasn’t been solved, after all. Most of the ammunition on the market today is at or above 70 grains with muzzle velocity around 1000 fps, giving the bullets about 160 or so ft.lbs of energy. Ammunition that meets the 130 ft.lbs limit is more of an exception, rather than the rule. What, then, is the rationale behind producing a gun that is not intended for majority of commercially available ammunition? If the aluminum alloy used for the frame cannot handle the stresses produced by regular ammo, then why not consider stronger material? Just a thought – titanium costs about $ 10,000 per metric ton (1,000 kg). That means $ 10 per kilo, that means about $ 3 for the 300 grams of metal that would be needed to make the frame for this gun. Would I be willing to pay extra $ 3 for the same gun with titanium frame that would, quite possibly, have no limitation on the type of ammo that could be used? Yes, yes, and yes, again! $ 3 is literally peanuts considering this gun’s MSRP is $ 650! The frame on my gun hasn’t cracked yet, but that notice from Beretta makes me feel like it may happen at some point.

And then, there is the issue with the failure to feed, which I did experience. I spent more than 25 years of my professional career as a Quality Engineer, and I claim to know a thing or two about quality. In my dictionary, every product that doesn’t work as intended straight from the box is a piece of junk. No ifs, buts or maybes about it. This gun, straight from the box, failed in its design intent to feed ammunition form a fully loaded magazine. Thus, I cannot but conclude that this gun is a piece of junk. Never mind that I fixed the feeding problem. I am the end user, and I should not be responsible for fixing defects caused by the manufacturer. I should have spent my money on looser-fitting pants to accommodate better the Walther PPS. These are my two cents.
IMG_0759.jpg

IMG_0761.jpg

[Bill DeShivs]

You should have bought a Keltec P32.
They work, they weigh 6 ounces, and they are extremely thin.

[Lauf]

Thanks for the tip, Bill. I will definitely check it out.

[stinkeypete]

We used to call what you did "tuning the magazine". It used to be a common thing we did: fussing with the spring and bending and polishing the lips of the magazine.

That's not even discussing polishing the feed ramp for ball vs. other bullet shapes.

As for making a special metalurgy to hot-rod .32 acp...
The American standards for firearms and ammuntion is voluntary, overseen by SAAMI.
SAAMI Service Maximum pressure is 150 CUP/100 and there is a lot of statistics and very specific details on how that is measured. As it's voluntary, American ammunition makers can excede that pressure when and however they like.

In Europe, the performance specs are required to be held to by law. They are regulated by the CIP. So maybe 32 Automatic is 7.65 Browning. The pistol must pass a proof test and ammo is tested to meet spec (homologation).

Your Italian gun has been designed and proof tested for CIP approved ammunition. European ammunition approved by CIP had a batch sent to the testing house and approved for sale.

I thought you might find that information interesting as it pertains to quality control.

As for polishing and tuning your magazines.... once you get them right they will work for a hundred years.

[Lauf]

What really bugs me is that Beretta should have done the tuning for me in the factory, but they never did. I suspect that they never even test fired the gun. If they did, they would have found out that the rear sight needed to be adjusted, as the gun was shooting quite a bit to the left of center (easily 4 inches at 10 yards). That was one more thing I had to correct on the gun. Quite a difference from another gun I own that was made in a different era by a different manufacturer - one of the earliest specimens of ČZ 75 sold here. That gun came with a proof target shot at 25 meters, and the holes in the target are nicely centered around the vertical axis of the target. The target was even signed with the name of the dude who fired the shots at the factory. Clearly, that manufacturer adjusted the rear sights directly in the factory so that the owner wouldn't have to mess with them. This is how much attention that company paid to the quality of their products as far back as in 1991 (the proof target is not only signed, but also dated November 28, 1991). Compare that with Beretta's "slap-it-together-and-ship-it-quickly" attitude, and that's why I am so disappointed with this gun. Also, as a side note - there really isn't that much Italian about this gun, save for the name Beretta and the magazine itself, which does carry a stamp "Made in Italy". The rest of the gun was made here in the US, and I suspect it may have been designed here as well.

[44caliberkid]

I have a Tanfoglio 380 that did the same thing when new. If you chambered a round, then topped off the magazine, it would fire the chambered round and jam on the top round in the magazine. Putting about two hundred rounds through it and leaving it with the mag fully loaded (it sits next to my easy chair) seemed to solve the problem. I just burned through a box of old FMJs a couple weeks ago without a failure.

[Bill DeShivs]

The Beretta Tomcat is not an Italian gun. They are made in America.

[Lauf]

44caliberkid: Thank you for alerting me of another manufacturer I will never buy anything from. Pistols are fairly simple mechanical devices, no rocket science here, and there is simply no good reason why they should not work right out of the box. I own several semiautomatic pistols - the first one I bought was made in Austria, the second one in Czechoslovakia (I only used this term because it was produced before 1/1/1993), the third one in Germany - and every single one of them worked flawlessly starting with the very first shot, even the sights were properly adjusted before they left the factory. I naively expected to have the same experience with the Beretta, but when that didn't materialize, I realized the gun wasn't made in Germany, Czech Republic, or Austria. Oh, well, lesson learned.

[Webleymkv]

Please don't take offense, but I think you've gone an overly round about way to fix a relatively simple issue. A lot of very small pistols come with very heavy magazine springs which can, when new, cause the very malfunction you experienced. What's basically happening is that the recoil spring cannot overcome the friction of the round against the magazine feed lips due to the overly heavy magazine spring. The simplest and easiest way to fix this is to simply leave the magazine loaded for a week or two in order to allow the spring to take some set, at which point the issue will usually resolve itself. I personally would rather have the magazine spring be overly heavy and need to take some set to begin with than have it take set (as all springs will) and become unreliable at some undetermined point in the future.

As to Beretta's recommendation not to use ammo with over 130 ft. lbs. of energy, the 3032 Tomcat was designed and built in the United States for U.S. spec .32 Auto ammunition (the gun would be too small to be imported under the 1968 GCA). The most commonly loaded .32 Auto ammunition in the U.S. (Remington, Federal, Winchester, etc.) is a 71 gr bullet at about 900 fps which produces just under 130 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy. The problem is that U.S. and European ammunition are loaded to two different sets of pressure specifications (the U.S. uses SAAMI while Europe uses CIP) and while they're usually close enough to be used interchangeably, there are a few cases where there is a significant difference and .32 Auto is one of those cases (it's widely known that European .32 ACP like S&B or Fiocchi is significantly more powerful than U.S. made .32 ACP). An easy test to see if ammo is suitable for use in your Beretta is that most .32 ACP ammo loaded with 71 gr bullets is loaded to the American specs (even some imported brands like Magtech, Armscor, and PPU) while nearly everything loaded with 73 gr bullets such as S&B, Fiocchi, Norma, and Geco is loaded to the hotter European specs. When you start getting into other weights like 60 gr JHP's, you really need to look at the manufacturers ballistics tables but I personally think that JHP's in a .32 Auto with a 2.4" barrel aren't a great idea to begin with.

You also need to understand that the 3032 Tomcat uses a different operating system than your PPS does as the Beretta is a simple blowback while the PPS uses a tilting-barrel, short-recoil operation. This means that the only thing keeping the slide closed until the bullet has exited the barrel of your Beretta is the tension of the recoil spring and the mass of the slide. This also means that, when using ammunition loaded to higher velocity, the frame of your Beretta is going to take more of a battering than the frame of your PPS is.

Remember, the Tomcat is something of a legacy design for Beretta (it was introduced in 1996) and was introduced at a time when we didn't have the plethora of small guns in relatively large calibers that we have today. When it was introduced, most of the other semi-autos which were comparable in size and weight to the Tomcat were .22's and .25's. At the time of its introduction, the hotter Euro-spec ammo wasn't as common in the United States and the inability to fire it was seen as an acceptable tradeoff to get such as small gun in a more powerful caliber than its contemporaries. Beretta addressed the durability issues in 1999 when they introduced the Inox model as it, and all subsequently produced Tomcats, have wider, heavier slides intended to reduce slide velocity and battering of the frame.

About the only ways I can think of for Beretta to make the Tomcat durable enough for a steady diet of Euro-Spec ammunition would be to either make the frame of a more durable material (which would significantly increase weight, cost, or both) or to redesign it to use some sort of short-recoil operation which would likely result the loss of the tip-up barrel feature which is one of the Tomcat's main selling points.

[Bill DeShivs]

In the 1980s I was on a quest for the nicest pocket gun I could find. I already had the Beretta 950 in both .22 short and .25, and the Beretta model 20- a double action version of the 950. All are fine guns.

The first one I bought was the Tomcat .32. Brought it home and compared it to some others around here. It weighed more than my Star DK Starfire .380 and was just as big. I put the Tomcat aside. I then bought a NAA Guardian .32 (a copy of the Seecamp.32) The Guardian was small, but thick and very heavy for it's size. It did shoot well, though.

And then I bought a Keltec P32. I had an FFL at the time and was a member of an early Keltec forum. Keltec offered forum members a deal on the first P32s. When serial number 117 arrived, I literally thought the box was empty! That's how light the gun is unloaded. Opened the box to find a real gun, that was so thin and lightweight that it was almost unbelieveable. A locked breech .32! Took it to the range immediately. Recoil was soft due to the locked breech design. Accuracy was good. Trigger light-but with overtravel. Made a trigger stop and have carried it ever since. We now have half a dozen P32s around here. Everyone carries one, and we have spares.

Gave the Tomcat to my brother. He shot it with no problems. I got it back when he passed away.

The Beretta 3032 Tomcat was the largest version of the 950 style guns. Next was the .22LR version. Both of these later guns pushed the limits of the original design to the point they turned an excellent little gun into a mediocre larger gun. This was in a time of change in the US market-when carry permits were being issued to the general public and the market was rife for guns of this sort. I find it strange that Beretta dropped the model 950, and kept the Bobcat .22 and Tomcat .32.

The Tomcat in it's original form was a chunky, thick pistol for it's size. When Beretta changed to the thicker slide, the already too thick, to heavy pistol became an also-ran in the pocket pistol category.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Bill DeShivs
The Beretta 3032 Tomcat was the largest version of the 950 style guns. Next was the .22LR version. Both of these later guns pushed the limits of the original design to the point they turned an excellent little gun into a mediocre larger gun.

Even with its shortcomings, the Tomcat still has one major selling point in its tip-up barrel feature (my wife bought and carries one for this very reason). For someone with limited hand strength who still wants a small gun, the Tomcat offers a good balance between size and caliber. For my wife in particular, the recoil of a Kel-Tec P32 is enough that, while she can shoot it, it's too unpleasant to want to practice with (the micro-380's and 9mm's would be even worse) and the DAO trigger of something like a Guardian or Seecamp would become tiresome for her very quickly. The Tomcat is just big and heavy enough for her to shoot comfortably but still small and light enough to be carried easily and the .32, while certainly not particularly powerful, inspires more confidence than a .22 or .25.